Taco Bell executive who attacks Uber driver sues for $5million
01-20-16, 08:38 PM
#16
Lexus Fanatic
First, it depends on the law firm. You'll obviously pay more at some firms, like Johnny Cochran's or F. Lee Bailey's, than you will at some local Ma-and Pa firms. Second, some law firms don't charge you anything at all unless a case is actually filed and you win it....then, of course, you pay up. Third, I am not totally clueless on the issue...I've served as a jury member on civil auto cases before in the courtroom....once also as the jury foreman.
You will not find a decent attorney for less than $300 an hour, & $300 an hour adds up quick...trust me.
This sort of thing seriously could ruin the guy...we avoid doing things in business all the time that we are perfectly within our rights to do, but we don't want to have to defend even a baseless lawsuit. I can threaten to sue you tomorrow for something that makes absolutely zero sense and it would cost you $5,000 just in the cost of sending letters back and forth...and thats without me even filing anything.
While I respect your opinion, we might just disagree on that. First (although I'm not a doctor and/or did not witness the event) the driver doesn't seem like he was significantly injured....so he can't sue for any medical bills or pain/suffering. Second, if he had an illegal camera in the car under CA law and took videos, that doesn't give him much grounds to sue, either.
01-20-16, 08:42 PM
#17
The uber guy is suing the taco bell executive for assault and will definitely win. You can clearly see that guy was a moron and if that was me I would have kicked him out of my car, parked around the corner and beat him to near death. I don't play with anyone putting hands on me.
01-20-16, 09:42 PM
#18
Lexus Fanatic
The injury is meaningless. He was assaulted...he has grounds for damages. Whether or not he had an illegal camera in the car has no bearing on his right to pursue damages for the wrongful actions of the other party.
Well, if he can prove that he actually did indeed suffer some damages, then fine....more power to him. All I can say, though, is........is good luck. The article, at least, doesn't seem to suggest much in that regard.
01-20-16, 09:47 PM
#19
Lexus Test Driver
Call the 8's. Selino and Barnes, injury attorneys, 1-800-888-8888...
01-20-16, 10:11 PM
#20
Lexus Fanatic
This is what you said:
Second, some law firms don't charge you anything at all unless a case is actually filed and you win it.
Being on a jury you watched the end result, the trial. The vast majority of disputes and such never make it to a court, but that doesn't mean they don't cost people a ton of money. I'm in the middle of defending myself and my company in a potential lawsuit. The person in question has no claim...but its still cost me thousands of dollars so far. Not the first time, won't be the last.
Well, if he can prove that he actually did indeed suffer some damages, then fine....more power to him. All I can say, though, is........is good luck. The article, at least, doesn't seem to suggest much in that regard.
Damages are not always simply reimbursement for costs.
I have no earthly idea how anybody can take the taco bell guy's side here lol
Last edited by SW17LS; 01-20-16 at 10:15 PM.
01-21-16, 09:41 AM
#23
01-21-16, 12:39 PM
#24
Lexus Fanatic
We deal with it in peoples houses. I can tell you that it is also illegal to record people in your house without notifying them they are being recorded.
The key is notifying them. If you let people know they're being recorded you can record them all you want, but even in your own property you cannot record people, especially their voices, without their consent.
Just because someone enters your private property doesn't mean they loose all their legal rights.
01-21-16, 01:50 PM
#25
That's such a cop-out clause, when did legal and illegal stray away from right and wrong
01-21-16, 02:50 PM
#26
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by super51fan
That's such a cop-out clause, when did legal and illegal stray away from right and wrong
01-21-16, 03:32 PM
#27
I have security cameras in my business, recorded thieves stealing, and used that as evidence for the cops to arrest and prosecute them.
I did not let the thieves know I will be recording them.
google search found this:
Generally speaking, it's legal in the United States to record surveillance video with a hidden camera in your home without the consent of the person you're recording.
Last edited by chikoo; 01-21-16 at 03:37 PM.
01-21-16, 04:53 PM
#28
Lexus Fanatic
01-21-16, 05:25 PM
#29
Lexus Fanatic
You mean to say I have to let the thieves know that I will be recording them when they enter to burgle my house?
I have security cameras in my business, recorded thieves stealing, and used that as evidence for the cops to arrest and prosecute them.
I did not let the thieves know I will be recording them.
I have security cameras in my business, recorded thieves stealing, and used that as evidence for the cops to arrest and prosecute them.
I did not let the thieves know I will be recording them.
The issue comes if you are going to use that video or audio recording as evidence. If it was obtained in an illegal manner...they won't allow it.
What is the issue with posting a notice?
google search found this:
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/ca...camera+laws.do
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/ca...camera+laws.do
But before you place a hidden camera or nanny cam in your home, it's a good idea to research the laws in your state. For an extra measure of security, you may also want to speak to an attorney about the specific ways you plan to use your camera. And bear in mind that audio recording and video recording are two entirely different topics.
More excerpts:
In most states, it's illegal to record hidden camera video in areas where your subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Outside the home, similar laws apply. It's generally legal to record surveillance video in public places — inside retail stores, restaurants or other places of business, for example. It's also legal to record covert video outdoors in parks, shopping malls, city streets or public squares.
The laws on audio surveillance are a bit clearer than the laws governing hidden camera surveillance. If you're planning to record a telephone call or an in-person conversation (using either a standalone audio recorder or a video camera that also captures sound), federal and state laws require that at least one of the parties consent to the recording. Currently, a majority of states allow "one-party consent." States that require two-party consent include California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Hawaii is something of a hybrid state. It allows one-party consent for audio recordings, but it requires two-party consent if the recording device is located in a "private place.")
So again, what I said is accurate:
Originally Posted by SW15LS
Actually not necessarily. You can't just record people with video or especially audio without their consent.
